Skip to main content

About this Show

Inside Washington

News/Business. (2010) (CC)

NETWORK
PBS

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
Annapolis, MD, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 78 (549 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chicago 8, Washington 7, Obama 5, John Boehner 4, Daley 2, John Maynard 2, Ronald Reagan 2, Paul 2, Kentucky 2, Us 2, Cleveland 2, Nevada 2, China 2, Tom Daschle 1, Richard Daley 1, George Stephanopoulos 1, Robert Gibbs 1, Ben Nelson 1, Nancy Pelosi 1, David Brooks 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  PBS    Inside Washington    News/Business.  (2010)  (CC)  

    September 10, 2010
    8:00 - 8:30pm EDT  

8:00pm
>> production assistance for "inside washington" provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> people take a look at what democrats stand for and what republicans stand for, who we are fighting for and who they are fighting for, and we will win. >> this week on "inside washington." the campaign is on the home stretch.
8:01pm
>> the american people are asking the question, where are the jobs? >> and a surprise announcement from the mayor of chicago. >> all will not seek a seventh term as the mayor of chicago. >> how did this guy get on page one? >> do you really think and jesus christ, if he was here today, would say, pastor, go burden that holley book. >> absolutely. >> if you look at the latest "washington post" paul, do would have to conclude that the adult book for the democrats is grim. republicans have a 9% advantage
8:02pm
among likely voters. we all know there is a hurricane coming for the democrats. what we have not determined is if it will be a category three or eight category five. is there any good news for democrats, mark? >> the president has seemed to become involved and engaged. that is good news. he is making a campaign message for them, but beyond that, no. >> i do not think there is much good news for democrats. two months to go. i suppose it could diffuse the storm of it they have, but in the end, i do not think they have the money advantage. they have the opposition candidates who say stupid things, but that does not seem to matter. people are too angry. >> i think it will be brought down to a tropical storm, not a
8:03pm
hurricane. the president will go around the nation, a battleground states. he is going to wisconsin, ohio, pennsylvania, nevada. he is going to make a real fight for it. as you can see in the polls, the generic polls put the democrats behind the republicans. they are even in other polls. this is just political prognostication. >> do the republicans get a free ride? >> the greatest limitation on the size of the republican gains is how badly the republicans may trip themselves up. they are the only ones who will limit how much they gain. it is conceivable they will limit themselves to be there by nominating people who are not sympathetic to independent voters, or in some cases, are at
8:04pm
a financial disadvantage. this they play it right, they can run the table. >> the amazing thing is there are some candidates who should be behind, given some of the incredible thing they have said. in kentucky, rand paul is ahead. jan brewer went on tv and had a disastrous performance. she simply stops and cannot remember what she is talking about, but she is still ahead. >> the president did come swinging out, this week speaking in cleveland. he mentioned john maynard, the home state of that individual. >> the republican who thinks he will take over as speaker --
8:05pm
[laughter] that is just his opinion. >> i guess every thriller needs a villain. how much mileage will the president get by painting him as the bad guy? >> john boehner here is not well known nationally. i think they are targeting boehner for one reason. there are trying to frame this debate as a cost more fair debate. if you look at him with his golf excursions, his tan, he can represent the laissez-faire and that democrats are looking to tack on to republicans. they see a package there. i still think it is pretty tough because he is not a national player.
8:06pm
>> the same thing happened with the republicans and nancy pelosi. that does not usually work. i have to say, obama has suddenly come alive and is talking like a regular person. when i say there are fish in the sea, i say no. when the sky is blue, i say no. i think people identify with that a bit. >> going after john boehner is pointless. most of all, people have no idea who you are talking about. people in cleveland do not know who john boehner is. they think he is from southern ohio. it took a year of new gingrich tossed political excesses' an office before he became a demon
8:07pm
so that bill clinton could run against him in 1996. the latest gallup poll showed it even with district voters. basically, the problem is, among interested voters, enthusiastic and voters. that is where the gap is. the president is trying to take disappointed constituencies and convince them that this race counts. >> the not so dirty little secret is that the president is out there helping. >> there is a lot of enthusiasm. he will be traveling, energizing people to get into the debate. they do have some problems with candidates. in nevada, you could not have a
8:08pm
worse republican nominee for the senate but harry reid is having trouble. the same thing is true in kentucky with rand paul, who ought to be trailing in the polls. >> the president has two challenges, if he is the one to carry this load. he needs to rally the base and get the independents to focus on the race in the way that he wants to define it. if you talk to democrats, strategists, who have done polls on the economy, the message the president is giving, talking about john maynard may excite the inside democrats, make them realize what the stakes are. that is not what moves independence. you have to talk about bush's economic policy. >> what do they say about the
8:09pm
economy? >> the republican party is standing up against every effort democrats are making to return america to prosperity. >> democratic chairman tim kane. let me get to to the polls. do you feel confident or not confident that life for our children's generation will be better than it has been for us? 66% do not kill confidence. is america in a state of decline? 65% believe the country is in a state of decline. how do you come back from that? >> it is tough to do. historically, internationally, the u.s. has been the home office of national optimism. optimism breed confidence. if you are optimistic about the future, you can take a chance,
8:10pm
whether it is the gi bill, air, water, pollution act's that made a difference. when people lack confidence, there is a sense of hunkering down, i cannot be concerned about other people. it makes me a lot more self concerned. it has a political ripple effect that is enormous. i do not think it has been totally calculated. >> the president says we will put money into infrastructure. john boehner wants to cut spending. how does that instill confidence in the american people? >> it does not compute to the average person. it is said that macroeconomics will benefit the system, but why do people not feel that? politicians in both parties have sort of lost credibility. it does not matter what comes
8:11pm
from washington now because they know that they will say almost anything to get their approval. what needs to happen is we need to see jobs, jobs, jobs come back. short of that, helping people feel more economically secure, they will continue to have concerns about the direction the country is going. >> it is not all bad news, though. >> it is true, what people want to see is the economy roared back. it may benefit obama to channel a bit of ronald reagan. while polls show such pessimism, americans want to be optimistic about their future. they want to know, yes, this is a tough time, but it is going to get better.
8:12pm
$50 billion in infrastructure does not get to the kind of message they want to hear. they heard that with the stimulus. instead, where is the inspiration all obama? ronald reagan brought an uplifting message in the middle of a recession and his party benefited from that kind of inspiration. maybe that is something that obama needs to turn to, not to save his own party, but to get americans, as a whole, to feel better. >> i think it is a lot more difficult now than it was in 1982. as bad as that recession was, -- i was reading david brooks on friday. people have this idea -- my father was a plumber. i have a white-collar job. i want my kid to be the next
8:13pm
step up. that may be an unrealistic idea. your kid could make more as a plumber, but most people do not want to be plumbers. we do not make much in the country anymore -- actually, we make a lot, but not as much as before. there is incredible unease about the future. other countries are making much more stuff than we are. >> why would a company make things in the united states when they could make it for a fraction in china? >> they cannot figure a way out. >> this is very much germane to what we are talking about. that is the underlying, fundamental restructuring of our economy. we are not going to be able to produce because of the cost of
8:14pm
production. china, a major exporter, is now seeing competition from bangladesh. they can do in even cheaper. we are going through a transformation. the job for obama, it seems to me, this to be able to explain these things to the american people and manage the changes we are going to go through. you cannot just say that we are going to go back to something. >> in fairness to him, he talks about the need for education, training scientists, engineers, he talks about it a lot. >> he does not talk -- when people go back to certain things -- he has to say, it is over, we are not going to do that again. >> the president's task right now is comparable to the situation the nation is in,
8:15pm
comparable to a subway train that had stopped suddenly between two stops. the american people are a voice that comes on and says, this is what happened, this is what we are going to do about it. the simple fact that more jobs in the private sector have been created this year than were created in the years of george bush's administration is something to think about and dimension. >> when congress comes back, they will be wrestling with tax cuts. >> it will be one heck of a fall. this is a big promise that democrats made to their constituents. they would repeal the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and bring some fairness into the tax system. use that money to pay for tax breaks for the middle class. but the business community has
8:16pm
been talking about how horrible it is, having a tax cut when the economy is so fragile, robbing the economy of its recovery. there are a lot of democrats who are boggling. we will see if they can deliver. i do not think they can deliver the promise. >> actually, a former member of the obama administration drew the same conclusion. >> whether we are talking about rahm emanuel or peter orszag, [inaudible] the rights and in "the new york times" calling for an extension of the tax cuts that the rich has.
8:17pm
>> this is something that the president can draw a line on. he does have a veto power. he can decide whether or not to extend the tax cuts for the rich for a year or something like that, or not. it seems to me the best thing to do would be to pull it back for those people who make less than $200,000, and will veto anything that does not help them. >> george stephanopoulos tried to nail him down on that question, but he said he would not necessarily veto. >> with a tough vote, you could pass the house, not to limit the tax cuts to those earning less than $250,000. but the house is not going to cast a single vote if the senate is not going to act. the president will have to say,
8:18pm
if this is the issue, i will veto. he cannot give one interview and then walk away from the issue. >> the same problem with the healthcare bill. there are some democrats who are backing away from the idea. >> they have backed off. they are meeting with ben nelson, other southern moderates. when you look at the politics of it, look at the electorate. you have a depressed democratic base that once this delivered. the progressive community is almost unanimous saying we have to get rid of these tax breaks for the wealthy. they need to decide those people, but they need the independents, and they are a bit more when she washy on it.
8:19pm
again, they are in a tough bus on who to play too. >> how much money are we talking about here? >> this gets into the argument about tax cuts -- the difference it makes in revenues. this is $700 billion over the next 10 years. we are talking about an average $511 increase per year for the high income earners. we are talking about people who don't need this money to survive or pay their rent or buy groceries. >> richard daley has been the mayor of chicago for many years, but he says it is time to go. >> it is time for me, it is time
8:20pm
for macondo to move on. improving chicago has been the ongoing work of my life. i loved every minute of it. >> chicago has loved mayor daley. what will rahm emanuel do? he made no secret that he would like to be the mayor, despite his job now. can he do it? >> probably, but it will not be a cakewalk. lots of people will run. he has not left a lot of friends outside of his immediate circle in the white house. he has been able to tick off more people, needlessly, and gratuitously, hurt a lot of people. >> unions, blacks, latinos,
8:21pm
liberals, he has managed to upset them. i do not hear talk from the white house saying we cannot spare him. >> it would not be a surprise if he left after the first term. chiefs of staff, particularly in a modern one house, do not stay on long. it is an enormously stressful job. for him to retire at the end of the year would not have been particularly surprising. this is something that he has personally wanted for a long time. betting odds are that he is gone and it is serving out the rest of the year. >> if you never knew a mayor other than richard daley, if you lived in chicago, you think about all the ambitious, young politicians. this is going to be a great fight.
8:22pm
the city of chicago -- 32% of the voters are non-hispanic whites. this is a city that is reflective of american urban life. >> is a fabulous city. you have to give a lot to -- a lot of credit to them. >> if rahm emanuel goes to chicago, there will be an improvement there, and in washington. >> i can see you are a big fan. who would replace him as chief of staff, tom daschle? >> he is a close friend of president obama, but i do not know. i would hope that he does not pick another washington insider. >> what kind of a leader does he need as chief of staff? >> somebody with a big group. -- big boot.
8:23pm
>> certainly, he needs somebody who can communicate with the republicans. he was the architect of the takeover of the senate. he is not the man to talk to the republicans. the president will need someone who can cross that line all because there will be more republicans next time. >> the question is whether or not the aisle is crossable. >> it will need to be somebody that can enable the president to do what he does best, that is to inspire, connect to the american people, which he has not done in these two years. >> you run the ship, i will get out there and decide what course it takes. >> you cannot do that job unless you are a washington insider. >> the debate continues.
8:24pm
the koran burning now. >> this stunned could greatly in danger of our men and women in uniform. >> it is regrettable that a pastor in gainesville, florida, with a church of no more than 50 people, can make this distressful, disgraceful plan and get the world attention. >> if your idea is crazy enough, you are almost guaranteed to get on tv. guy has been on tv all week. what would you do to this guy? >> i would have let robert gibbs make a statement and then let it go. terry jones would have been right at home in the medieval crusades. he missed his calling by about five centuries. he is an individual doing what
8:25pm
any number of crackpot to could do. the fact that he has gone so much attention says something about us. >> general petraeus it is saying that this could cause harm. >> all of that is distressing. this reminds me of a little bit about those freak shows that we saw in the 1920's, except this one has the potential for damage. >> i think the president would have been chastised if this fellow went ahead and caused repercussions.
8:26pm
i think for terry jones, my suggestion would be to give him his own show on the fox business channel and no one will ever hear from him again. >> i would have preferred to see a more definitive statement from the white house that recognize to we are as americans, want our freedom of speech rights are, but clearly condemned it, and then no more talk. all the comments coming later have only fed the beast. >> what about television? should we be ignoring this guy? >> something else we are not talking about is, because this individual burns the grand, you are going to have people going after innocent americans? >> see you next week.
8:27pm
8:28pm
8:29pm